Some games with experienced players having a similar position/strengh on the board, when the card value of a set is too low compared to the total number of armies of each players, will never end unless one of the players goes crazy and suicide on another.

So the best to do is to end that game. When all non-eliminated players agree to terminante the game, I understood points of eliminated players would be shared between them, otherwise eliminated players would benefit of an undue advantage and nobody would agree to terminate such games no more.

But this is not what happened in this game http://www.wargear.net/games/view/53483.

Is it a good thing or is it a bug ?

PS. I am not talking about tournament games, which was the subject of another thread http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/1380/Terminating_a_tournament_game

Toto wrote:

When all non-eliminated players agree to terminante the game, I understood points of eliminated players would be shared between them, otherwise eliminated players would benefit of an undue advantage and nobody would agree to terminate such games no more.

This is wrong.  If the game is terminated then no players points change.

I'd say it's intended and should stay that way as well.  Otherwise it's a lot more enticing to terminate a game and both players gain points, than one win and the other lose points.  I'd guess that there would be more collaborating and "cheating" if it was any different.

I don't know, cheaters will always find ways to do it.

Then why not restarting a game with the non-eliminated players only with all the points of the first game at stake (as I was suggested by Tom in the thread about tournaments) ? It would be like a tie-break. I know it would not be possible when the number of players is a fixed one or has a minimum.

In the above game, would it be possible to cancel the "terminate" if Ecko and Djembe agree ?

Toto wrote:

Then why not restarting a game with the non-eliminated players only with all the points of the first game at stake (as I was suggested by Tom in the thread about tournaments) ? It would be like a tie-break. I know it would not be possible when the number of players is a fixed one or has a minimum.

Then you have a completely different game, so why should the first points still be at stake?

Because if you are 1 of the 3 players having eliminated 5 others, you deserve to get the points of the job you have done, if you can't share it with the 2 others... Otherwise it would be like losing the points of the terminated game and starting a 3-player game from scratch.

Toto wrote:

Because if you are 1 of the 3 players having eliminated 5 others, you deserve to get the points of the job you have done, if you can't share it with the 2 others... Otherwise it would be like losing the points of the terminated game and starting a 3-player game from scratch.

The other side of this argument is that you have not done a good job of dominating the world. The collective eliminations of the remaining players favored a stalemate, so they were not worthy eliminations, and do not deserve to be rewarded. Otherwise you have a game in which surviving has enhanced value.

Both arguments are ultimately subjective, but this view is more consistent in a game of world domination.

Actually, the numbers in your game are still low enough to do something about. It will likely turn into a stalemate, but that just depends on the players.

Now this  http://www.wargear.net/games/view/29053 ; is a stalemate.....I started the first offer to terminate last December....

Seige07 wrote:

Actually, the numbers in your game are still low enough to do something about. It will likely turn into a stalemate, but that just depends on the players.

Now this  http://www.wargear.net/games/view/29053 ;; is a stalemate.....I started the first offer to terminate last December....

Oh my God !!! I can't believe it. What's the point in playing this kind of game. This game will never end, unless someone get booted or go crazy (like me in this game http://www.wargear.net/games/player/41647, with Phelbas again).

These games are boring and should have an end. May be a time limit, like when I play poker with friends, we say in advance that we will stop playing at midnight.

Seige07 wrote:

Actually, the numbers in your game are still low enough to do something about. It will likely turn into a stalemate, but that just depends on the players.

Now this  http://www.wargear.net/games/view/29053 ;; is a stalemate.....I started the first offer to terminate last December....

That is the best example of dedication I have see in a very long time.

I've mentioned this before, but I think a time-bomb type solution might work.  Something that can be set by the map maker, that says if the lead (measured by total # of units) doesn't change in N turns the game ends with no winner.

One question - are players notified that this end game condition is approaching?  I say yes they should be given a warning 3,2 and 1 turn away from it happening.

Another question - do you get this warning in fog games?  I think yes, you should still get it.

A couple of alternatives (or configurable options) - The game ends with the leader as the winner instead of no winner.   There could be no warnings, or just no warnings in foggy games.

Ozyman wrote:

I've mentioned this before...

I remember a thread about this, but I can't find it. I believe the search engine is not very efficient.

IMO a  form of notification is needed, and the leader should win so others will have to do something.

Oh, I totally disagree with any forced termination. 

This game is an awesome example of the stable 3-way that I dread--when every player plays not to lose, and waits for someone else to make a mistake.  Only way out is for someone to have the guts to destabilize the situation.

Seige, if you want some off-the-wall thoughts on this, shoot me a message.  I admit I'm fascinated.

Toto wrote:

Ozyman wrote:

I've mentioned this before...

I remember a thread about this, but I can't find it. I believe the search engine is not very efficient.

IMO a  form of notification is needed, and the leader should win so others will have to do something.

There are a few "Win Condition" gameplay styles that reference things similar to these.  See FeatureID 87-89 here: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Amde-LBDUI7QdERHeVZ2a0s3QjRHS3NXSGNhMTc3aUE&hl=en&authkey=CLjgyYcH#gid=0

Yertle and Hugh are both right, changing something about this would change the games entirely. Surviving would have more value and negociation would become more important than strategy.

Status quo ftw.

gg.

Toto wrote:

... Is it a good thing or is it a bug ? ...

Well, thinking about it again, reading Ecko, Yertle and Hugh, I understand it must be better indeed not to give points when terminating a game. A kind of limit (time(or even better the number of rounds, to avoid players waiting to take their turn), max number of units for the board or for 1 player,...) seems necessary, but will need to be tested as it will change the game when approching the limit. Seige's example is to be kept in mind.

For some of these issues, the rules of chess comes to mind.  Given that there is the potential for a draw on some boards that don't have guaranteed army production, one might argue that a mechanism should be in place for terminating a game by rule.

Consider the situation in chess where both players are down to a King only.  The rules stipulate a draw and the game ends.  The current WarGear solution for a similar situation (short of sending an e-mail to tom) is that both players agree to terminate the game.  Unfortunately, as we know, it's possible for a player to decide to outlive his or her opponent (all's fair in war, right?), and refuse to terminate the game.  Maybe this is OK, but it would be nice if it could be avoided.

Ozyman suggested that games where the lead doesn't change by x armies for a designer-specified period of time would be automatically terminated.  I like this idea but think it might be flawed, so I would add  that there should additionally be a requirement  that one player needs to hit the "request for draw by rule" button for this feature to kick in.

M57 wrote:

Ozyman suggested that games where the lead doesn't change by x armies for a designer-specified period of time would be automatically terminated.  I like this idea but think it might be flawed, so I would add  that there should additionally be a requirement  that one player needs to hit the "request for draw by rule" button for this feature to kick in.

This makes sense.  It also makes the notification question cleaner.  Any player could click the 'request stalemate-draw' button.  Then each player receives a pop-up at the beginning of each turn stating: "Player X has requests a draw due to stalemate.  If no players are eliminated and the lead does not change in the next N rounds, the game will end in a draw." Where N starts at 4(?) and decrements each round.  So everyone gets a notice, but you don't even learn who is actually in the lead.  To prevent abuse you could even make this require a vote, but only require a majority to trigger the countdown instead of a unanimous vote. 

I'm with Yertle.. giving points for termination rewards the wrong type of collaboration.

BlackDog wrote:

I'm with Yertle.. giving points for termination rewards the wrong type of collaboration.

+1